CWP-4868- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (201) M/s Ahuja Industries Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, award dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P learned Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, petitioner/Management of the workman/respondent No.2, and reinstatement, 2. this Court that though there the employee. However, in order to give quietus between the parties concerned, and to set an example of model Management, they are ready and willing to settle this dispute, once lump sum compensation of Rs.1,80,000/ -2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Ahuja Industries Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Haridhia Aggarwal, Advocate Ms. Tanya Bhurji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate and Ms. Apurva Rathee, Advocate for the respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, award dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P learned Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, has been put to challenge by the petitioner/Management, wherethrough, the re of the workman/respondent No.2, and reinstatement, with continuity of service and full back wages. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management, apprises this Court that though there does not exists any relationship of employer and the employee. However, in order to give quietus between the parties concerned, and to set an example of model Management, they are ready and willing to settle this dispute, once lump sum compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-, to the respondent No.2/workman. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4868-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.04.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Haridhia Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Tanya Bhurji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate and Ms. Apurva Rathee, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, award dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by has been put to challenge by the , wherethrough, the reference was answered in favour of the workman/respondent No.2, and he was awarded the relief of with continuity of service and full back wages. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management, apprises does not exists any relationship of employer and the employee. However, in order to give quietus to all the dispute pending between the parties concerned, and to set an example of model Management, they are ready and willing to settle this dispute, once and for all, by paying a , to the respondent No.2/workman. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of passed by has been put to challenge by the ference was answered in favour he was awarded the relief of Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management, apprises does not exists any relationship of employer and the dispute pending between the parties concerned, and to set an example of model Management, and for all, by paying a , to the respondent No.2/workman. MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4868- Further, on instructions, he submits that respondent No.2/workman, who is present in the Court, be also restrained from raising any arising out of this dispute. 3. the offer made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management has further given an assurance to raised by the respondent No.2/workman, 4. concerned, the instant writ petition is modified to the extent that compensatio receipt of certified copy of this order, in the bank account of the respondent No.2/workman, between the parties concerned. T No.2/workman, 5. within the stipulate period, the respondent No.2/workman, would further be entitled for interest @ 6. April 16, 202 Manpreet -2019 (O&M) Further, on instructions, he submits that respondent No.2/workman, who is present in the Court, be also restrained from raising any out of this dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/workman, fairly accepts the offer made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management given an assurance to this Court that no further litigation shall be y the respondent No.2/workman, arising out of the instant In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties concerned, the instant writ petition is disposed of modified to the extent that petitioner/Management, compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in the bank account of the respondent No.2/workman, which shall bring down the curtain of all the disputes pending tween the parties concerned. The details of No.2/workman, are mentioned below :- Name - Rajwinder Singh A/c No.- 31179607136 IFSC Code - SBIN0050077 Branch - SBI Branch, Sehnewal Needless to say, that in case, the above said payment is not made within the stipulate period, the respondent No.2/workman, would further be entitled for interest @ 6%, on the delayed payment. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordin 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 Further, on instructions, he submits that respondent No.2/workman, who is present in the Court, be also restrained from raising any further litigation Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/workman, fairly accepts the offer made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner/Management, and this Court that no further litigation shall be arising out of the instant lis. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties disposed of, and the impugned award is petitioner/Management, shall deposit lump sum , within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in the bank account of the respondent which shall bring down the curtain of all the disputes pending he details of bank account of respondent Singh SBIN0050077 SBI Branch, Sehnewal Needless to say, that in case, the above said payment is not made within the stipulate period, the respondent No.2/workman, would further be %, on the delayed payment. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Further, on instructions, he submits that respondent No.2/workman, who is litigation Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/workman, fairly accepts , and this Court that no further litigation shall be In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties and the impugned award is deposit lump sum , within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in the bank account of the respondent which shall bring down the curtain of all the disputes pending bank account of respondent Needless to say, that in case, the above said payment is not made within the stipulate period, the respondent No.2/workman, would further be MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment